sra: Punt for too large _BitInt accesses [PR113330]

Message ID ZaEJv14zRdJurMmA@tucnak
State New
Headers
Series sra: Punt for too large _BitInt accesses [PR113330] |

Checks

Context Check Description
linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_gcc_build--master-aarch64 fail Patch failed to apply
linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_gcc_build--master-arm fail Patch failed to apply

Commit Message

Jakub Jelinek Jan. 12, 2024, 9:43 a.m. UTC
  Hi!

This is the case I was talking about in
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642423.html
and Zdenek kindly found a testcase for it.
We can only create BITINT_TYPE with precision at most 65535, not 65536,
so need to punt if we'd want to create it.

Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?

2024-01-12  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>

	PR tree-optimization/113330
	* tree-sra.cc (create_access): Punt for BITINT_TYPE accesses with
	too large size.

	* gcc.dg/bitint-69.c: New test.


	Jakub
  

Comments

Richard Biener Jan. 12, 2024, 9:44 a.m. UTC | #1
On Fri, 12 Jan 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> This is the case I was talking about in
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-January/642423.html
> and Zdenek kindly found a testcase for it.
> We can only create BITINT_TYPE with precision at most 65535, not 65536,
> so need to punt if we'd want to create it.
> 
> Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?

OK

> 2024-01-12  Jakub Jelinek  <jakub@redhat.com>
> 
> 	PR tree-optimization/113330
> 	* tree-sra.cc (create_access): Punt for BITINT_TYPE accesses with
> 	too large size.
> 
> 	* gcc.dg/bitint-69.c: New test.
> 
> --- gcc/tree-sra.cc.jj	2024-01-10 12:45:54.293851670 +0100
> +++ gcc/tree-sra.cc	2024-01-11 15:13:29.697073438 +0100
> @@ -967,6 +967,12 @@ create_access (tree expr, gimple *stmt,
>        disqualify_candidate (base, "Encountered an access beyond the base.");
>        return NULL;
>      }
> +  if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (expr)) == BITINT_TYPE
> +      && size > WIDE_INT_MAX_PRECISION - 1)
> +    {
> +      disqualify_candidate (base, "Encountered too large _BitInt access.");
> +      return NULL;
> +    }
>  
>    access = create_access_1 (base, offset, size);
>    access->expr = expr;
> --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-69.c.jj	2024-01-11 15:16:57.573140907 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-69.c	2024-01-12 09:55:30.026374627 +0100
> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> +/* PR tree-optimization/113330 */
> +/* { dg-do compile { target bitint } } */
> +/* { dg-require-stack-check "generic" } */
> +/* { dg-options "-std=c23 -O --param=large-stack-frame=131072 -fstack-check=generic --param=sccvn-max-alias-queries-per-access=0" } */
> +
> +_BitInt(8) a;
> +
> +static inline __attribute__((__always_inline__)) void
> +bar (int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int)
> +{
> +#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 65535
> +  _BitInt(65535) b = 0;
> +  _BitInt(383) c = 0;
> +#else
> +  _BitInt(63) b = 0;
> +  _BitInt(39) c = 0;
> +#endif
> +  a = b;
> +}
> +
> +void
> +foo (void)
> +{
> +  bar (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
> +}
> 
> 	Jakub
> 
>
  

Patch

--- gcc/tree-sra.cc.jj	2024-01-10 12:45:54.293851670 +0100
+++ gcc/tree-sra.cc	2024-01-11 15:13:29.697073438 +0100
@@ -967,6 +967,12 @@  create_access (tree expr, gimple *stmt,
       disqualify_candidate (base, "Encountered an access beyond the base.");
       return NULL;
     }
+  if (TREE_CODE (TREE_TYPE (expr)) == BITINT_TYPE
+      && size > WIDE_INT_MAX_PRECISION - 1)
+    {
+      disqualify_candidate (base, "Encountered too large _BitInt access.");
+      return NULL;
+    }
 
   access = create_access_1 (base, offset, size);
   access->expr = expr;
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-69.c.jj	2024-01-11 15:16:57.573140907 +0100
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/bitint-69.c	2024-01-12 09:55:30.026374627 +0100
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ 
+/* PR tree-optimization/113330 */
+/* { dg-do compile { target bitint } } */
+/* { dg-require-stack-check "generic" } */
+/* { dg-options "-std=c23 -O --param=large-stack-frame=131072 -fstack-check=generic --param=sccvn-max-alias-queries-per-access=0" } */
+
+_BitInt(8) a;
+
+static inline __attribute__((__always_inline__)) void
+bar (int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int)
+{
+#if __BITINT_MAXWIDTH__ >= 65535
+  _BitInt(65535) b = 0;
+  _BitInt(383) c = 0;
+#else
+  _BitInt(63) b = 0;
+  _BitInt(39) c = 0;
+#endif
+  a = b;
+}
+
+void
+foo (void)
+{
+  bar (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0);
+}